Robert Elz <kre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:08:13 -0700 > From: Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <200706150008.l5F08EXt014583@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > | (Now would be an excellent time to > | consider updates/clarifications to the above text.) > Aside from the minor problem that the paragraph you quoted is way more > wordy and chatty than is really needed, it gets the "should be" procedure > all wrong. > The IANA is the Internet Assigned Numbers AUTHORITY and should be treated > that way - allowing assignment requirements in specs to be ignored in cases > where they're obviously wrong is fine. But is the IANA which (who) should > make the decision, not the IESG. Um, this train left the station a LONG time ago. RFC 2434 (and existing practice) have given the role of approving assignments to the technical/protocol experts that created that name space. That is why we have IANA considerations sections. The IESG is just the default fallback for when the IANA considerations as written don't properly work for some reason. But in general, and in the vast majority of cases today, the system works -- with assignments being made as the original registry creators intended (and without the IESG playing any role). And the intention in giving the IESG that role is not for the IESG to step in and do the work themselves, but give them the authority/responsibility to go find the right people to do the evaluation. But the buck has to stop somewhere, and in the IETF, that is the IESG. IANA does not make the decisions on what to assign and what not to assign, unless it has been given clear criteria when it can do so. In general, IANA does not have the expertise to make such evaluations. Many are very protocol specific and require an evaluation by someone with an understanding of the protocols that will be using the assignment. Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf